I have been looking for opportunities to get into Hyper recently, so I am paying close attention to the timing.

I just happened to read Pantera's article about Hyperliquid, and no matter how you look at it, it seems like a damn high-end promotional essay.

It's not that what it writes doesn't make sense, but it writes too well:

Pantera, as an interested party in Hyperliquid, spares no effort in praising it, directly claiming:

The future revenue potential of Hyper is five times what it is now, with platform annual revenue reaching $3.7 billion, and the underlying implication is that it can at least rise fivefold!

Is it really that impressive? Or is it just a case of bias?

Let's look at the data!

DefiLlama currently shows that Hyperliquid has an annual fee of about $1.073 billion, annual revenue of about $829 million, and 30-day revenue of about $47.42 million, which is indeed a good cash cow.

What's more critical is that HYPE's value capture is more direct than many governance tokens.

The market generally focuses on its Assistance Fund buyback mechanism, and CF Benchmarks' analysis also mentions that the Assistance Fund will absorb about 97%–99% of the net protocol fees, which will be used to continuously buy back HYPE in the open market.

This is different from traditional DeFi governance tokens like UNI and AAVE.

Many DeFi protocols have "strong protocols but awkward tokens," but Hyperliquid has at least solved part of this problem: the protocol makes money → revenue buys back HYPE → token holders can directly feel the value capture.

So from a fundamental perspective, hyperliquid:native is definitely one of the few assets in Crypto worth serious study and even worth allocation.

But the problem lies here: a good asset does not equal a good price.

The biggest issue with Pantera's article is that it talks about a future ceiling, so it shouldn't be taken as a current buying signal.

Hyperliquid's future revenue could reach five times what it is now, but there are several significant prerequisites behind this:

First, Hyperliquid really needs to expand from Crypto perp to traditional assets like stocks, commodities, forex, indices, and Pre-IPO companies.

Second, HIP-3 really needs to attract high-quality builders and high-quality markets continuously, rather than relying on just a few hot assets to drive short-term volume.

Third, traditional financial users really need to be willing to trade these assets on-chain, rather than ultimately flowing to compliant platforms like Coinbase, CME, ICE, and Robinhood.

Fourth, regulation must not become a fatal variable.

Fifth, HYPE's valuation does not already fully account for future growth.

As long as one of these prerequisites is not met, the so-called “five times revenue” story will have to be discounted.

Especially regarding regulation, Pantera interprets the acceptance of perp by U.S. regulators as a major positive, which is not wrong, but it's not necessarily all good news for Hyperliquid, because once the compliant perp market opens in the U.S., real giants will enter the arena.

Coinbase, CME, ICE, Kalshi, Robinhood, these players have licensing, institutional relationships, compliance pathways, and traditional users.

At that point, Hyperliquid will be facing not just a few on-chain DEXs, but traditional finance regular troops.

This could either expand the perp category or siphon off Hyperliquid's users and trading volume.

Another risk is that while traditional asset perps sound very sexy, the actual difficulty is much higher than Crypto perps.

BTC and ETH are traded 24/7, with continuous spot prices.

But stocks, commodities, and private companies do not function the same way.

Especially for Pre-IPO perps like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic, it is often not about "investing in this company," but about trading a synthetic price.

It does not carry real equity, shareholder rights, dividends, or legal claims.

If price discovery is done well, it's innovation; if price discovery fails, it becomes a large emotional casino: oracle issues, settlement mechanisms, liquidity, manipulation risks, and disputes under extreme market conditions may all become problems in the future.

If future revenues are not an issue, but the market enters a bear phase, all highly elastic assets will face valuation cuts, and HYPE will drop too.

So my view on hyperliquid:native is very simple:

It is definitely a good asset in this cycle, even among the best of its kind. I am still looking for opportunities to re-enter after regretting my sell-out at the opening, but let's not deify it.

Pantera @PanteraCapital is quite crafty; now with such a grand article, I worry he might be luring everyone to jump in, so don't get carried away after reading.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。